While I generally agree, I am going to go against type and share one thing that did always bug me about the Discworld: a lot of the ordinary protagonists turn out to be scions of important families. Vimes is first introduced as an alcoholic cop, but by Feet of Clay he's the descendant of the man who led the revolution against monarchy and killed the last king. Angua is an "ordinary" werewolf in Men at Arms but the daughter of one of the three most important families in Uberwald by The Fifth Elephant. Even the Weatherwax family is several times referred to as one with a lot of innate power (I am excluding Carrot from this because the fact that he is The One True King was always the joke).
It doesn't mean that there aren't characters who are, in fact, common folks. Or that these changes aren't very interesting directions for the characters. But it's definitely a pattern.
I think that the real reason that Terry Pratchett is my favourite fantasy writer is that he’s the only one who really centres working people in his stories. I mean, Game of Thrones is almost entirely about the antics of rival aristocrats; Harry Potter is heir to two family fortunes and the subject of a prophecy and goes to an elite boarding school; even the Hobbits (save Sam) in The Lord of the Rings are minor gentry. Meanwhile, who are the main protagonists in Discworld? A recovering-alcoholic cop; an old peasant woman who lives in a cottage; a conman who was forced to take over the post-office. Pratchett writes entire novels about classes of people that other writers treat as background characters. He’s not condescending in his depictions; he’s willing to show enlisted soldiers as people, rather than arrow-fodder; and he’s aware that even ‘simple peasants’ know detailed information about things that wizards and knights can’t be arsed to care about; that everything about the world takes a hell of a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes and that most people never see, And he makes sure that you know this, too.
I still can't believe that Gabriel and Beelzebub said "Gay rights but just for us".
I am coming to France next week!
I cannot express how disappointed I am in the fact that the link to [Elliot, 2025] doesn't work. And that the paper was an April's Fool. Elliot please share the joke with me I want to know what's the Elamo-Minoan hypothesis.
University really is about looking at the worst pdf known to man huh
My latest New Scientist cartoon.
I miss when everyone on my dash listened to Welcome to Night Vale so there’s be a good chance that on any ole day someone would reblog a quote that would grab me by the throat and forcibly ascend me to a higher plane where I understood myself and the universe better and with more kindness but also a little spook
My take is that both have a finite amount of commitment in them, and put it all into each other. They don't have enough left for a pet, long-term goals, or an address
since Arthur isn’t a fan, would John be inclined to any animals in particular? he strikes me as a cat-lover, maybe for the shared temperament
No, neither like animals
EDIT: neither are pet people should be a better way of saying this. They can empathize with any creature (lily) and they care about creatures, but they’ll never have pets.
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 p8
MASTER POST